On 2006-07-31, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > (snip) >> Sure it is usefull. It may be not 100% formally correct, but often >> things that are not 100% formally correct can be better in bringing >> an idea accross. > > hear hear... > > And yet you still fail to understand why I claimed Python didn't have > variables ? Talk about stubborness :(
I don't think it is usefull to claim Python has no variables. Smalltalk variables behave essentially the same as python variables and AFAIK never has the term 'variable' been seen there as an obstacle for understanding how smalltalk works. Python objects/classes don't behave exactly the same as objects/classes in some other languages, are you going to claim that python has no objects/classes when you want to explain these difference? What other terminology are you prepared to throw away because things behave somewhat differently in Python than they do in some other languages? IMO you are the one who seem to want 100% formally correctness, because you wanted to throw away a term because the entity refered to by it, didn't behave exactly the same as it did in an other language. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
